For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. [..]

After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers–most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.

Quoting KSYR (Reply 1):The vast majority of the military supports the war in Iraq and would never think of joining such a group/organization.

Well they also don't have much of a choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our servicemen are discouraged and are starting to wonder why they're risking their lives and dying out there, as in "what's the purpose?" A good amount of them thought they were going in there because of WMDs, and we all know that isn't true now. So it's not really too surprising.

Of course you do. That is why you were reading this rag in the first place. Look, the administration, the military, the USA can be fairly criticised for one thing or another just about any time, but this site that apparently is deemed worthy of YOUR time and attention appears to have NO OTHER interest in the whole wide world.

You do your "cause" no service at all when you post such obviously biased tripe.

That is what I think.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.

Before attacking the source, why don't you address the article at hand. Clearly you don't like what it says so you just attack the magazine. Let's see what "The Nation" is shall we?

***

The Nation (ISSN 0027-8378) is a weekly [1] U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left." [2] Founded on July 6, 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. It is published by the Nation Company, L.P. at 33 Irving Place, New York City.

The Nation has bureaus in Budapest, London, and Southern Africa and departments covering Architecture, Art, Corporations, Defense, Environment, Films, Legal Affairs, Music, Peace and Disarmament, Poetry, and the United Nations. The circulation of The Nation is rising and was last placed at 184,296 (2004), surpassing the New Democrat The New Republic, the neoconservative The Weekly Standard, and the conservative National Review (circulation 155,584). The Nation magazine has lost money in all but three or four years of operation and is sustained in part by a group of more than 25,000 donors called The Nation Associates who donate funds to the periodical above and beyond their annual subscription fees.

Clearly this isn't a large percentage, but I see it as a high number of soldiers. Also, what about the comparison of the dissent in this war and the Vietnam war, a clearly unpopular war?

Truth be told, it is NOT a high number of soldiers. In real numbers, it doesn't even amount to a heavy battalion sized element. . . it's simply a drop in the bucket. It's a sensationalized piece of work tossing out the number ONE THOUSAND like it's some grandious number and the military is about to revolt. Truthfully, it's nothing. A thousand pissed off soldiers! Is that all??? Hell, man, walk through any military base - here or there - and I guarantee you a similar result.

It truly is nothing.

As for the comparison with 'Nam, that's simply hogwash. More agrandizing by the self proclaimed left wing rag . . . . pure and simple. Can't spell it out any plainer than that.

Bottom line: Worthless propganda.

FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):self-described as "the flagship of the left."

I don't care if it is the "left" or the "right" anyone proclaiming themselves to be a voice of one side or the other is a rag and should not be confused with a newspaper or a magazine or with serious journalism.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):show me how any of those article headlines you posted are propoganda and not reported fact

Almost 100% of all effective propaganda is based in facts. The only thing that is altered is context, significance, original intent, causality. Either side in any argument can marshal "facts" into its service.

Merit in political analysis must begin with the willingness to listen to both sides and evaluate these things. In proclaiming itself to be "of the left" this organization is declaring that all possible future utterances and motives of all other political leanings are without virtue. They are declaring that their minds are made up in favor of "the left" and that additional facts or opinions will not be considered.

I am somewhat conservative but I would not waste my time listening to, or reading sources that described themselves as "conservative" or "right" leaning. What is the point? You already know what their conclusions are going to be AND THEY PROVED AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT HERE. This story is about NOTHING.

The website you linked is of precisely the same value as the Rush Limbaugh show. It is just on the opposite side of the same dunghill.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.

Many of the soldiers who are supporting this dissent group may be those who have had a lot of bad experiences in Iraq or are frustrated with the inability to deal with a enemy you cannot identify and where most don't want you there. Probably many in it have had too many close calls or lost friends to IED's, on their 3rd tour and may have to face a 4th, family members or themselves terribly stressed out from the threats and deaths there, Some are probably Reservists or National Guard members and joined the military for educational money, may have family members in poverty as not there to provide a decent income and medical benefits, may not have a decent job to go home to or end up with horrible disabilities and lifelong pain from their service.
I suspect that this dissent group will grow until we get out of Iraq or the miltary services take those that sign up and penalize them in a court martial or being sent back to Iraq with more dangerous assignments.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
No it isn't, but NOT for the reasons you stipulate. You underestimate the American serviceperson, and you short sheet them and their intelligence all in one post. Well done.

I did all that? And all I said was "they thought they were going in there for WMDs".. I mean, didn't they? I sure did. And so did the president *cough*

The is not that they have an opinion . . .. the point is that that small percentage is not as big a deal as perhaps some left wing rag, or bleeding heart liberal would suggest . . . .

In fact, I find it not surprising. In fact, I find it quite normal.

Much ado about - well - nothing. A certain percentage of every employer will in fact have dissent in the ranks. I'll bet real US $$$ right now that if you asked any air carrier employees, be they rampers, CSA, F/A or flight deck crew, whether they are satisfied with their employment the percentage will be incredibly higher!

FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):Founded on July 6, 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. It is published by the Nation Company, L.P. at 33 Irving Place, New York City.